persons who take the children are usually
small farmers or tradesmen, the report is
favourable. It will be seen that the English
experience asserts the superior economy of
the boarding-out system as against keeping
the children in the workhouse; and that
in this respect it differs from Sir John
M 'Neil's report.

Some of the chief objections to the plan
were very concisely put, in a letter
addressed, in April last, to Colonel C. W.
Grant, the chairman of the Boarding-out
Committee of the Bath Union, from the
Poor Law Board. The board, they say,
"have hitherto been consistently opposed
to the scheme, influenced mainly by the
consideration that the guardians would be
unable to exercise the necessary control
and supervision of the children who may
be removed from the workhouse and placed
under the charge of those whose chief
object in taking the children would be to
make a profit of the sums allowed for their
maintenance." Here the Poor Law Board
most undoubtedly detects the weakest part
of the scheme. "Other strong objections
occurred to the board, such as the difficulty
of insuring that some regular education
for the children is given, as in the schools
attached to the union." These considerations,
however, do not appear to have had
a strong deterrent effect on the board, for
they go on to say: "On the other hand,
the board are aware that the system of
boarding-out children has been in operation
for many years in Scotland with apparent
success. The board are fully sensible of
the many arguments which can be urged
in favour of the plan, and, provided that
they could be satisfied that a thorough
system of efficient supervision and control
would be established by the guardians, and
the most rigid inquiry instituted, at short
intervals, into the treatment and education
of the children, the board have come to
the conclusion that they ought not to
discourage the guardians from giving the plan
a fair trial."

Armed with this authority, and fortified
by the testimony from other unions, of
which we have given examples, the Bath
committee set on foot inquiries as to
whether there would be any difficulty in finding
fit and proper persons to take charge
of the children for a fair remuneration.
Satisfactory replies being obtained, the
next thing that remained was to fix what
that remuneration should be. And here it
was necessary, above all things, to bear in
mind the warning of the Poor Law Board,
and to be sure that the sum offered, while
sufficient to induce respectable people to
receive pauper boarders into their families,
should not be so large as to tempt mere
greed.

In the Edinburgh Union half-a-crown a
week is paid with each child, and in special
cases even more: clothing is given, and
school fees and medicine are paid for. In
the Glasgow and Aberdeen Unions, the
amount allowed is about the same. In all
these Unions, it is sensibly and wisely
provided that the clothing provided for the
children shall not be such as to make them
conspicuous among their fellows.
Edinburgh says, "clothing not of a workhouse
character." Glasgow "supplies clothing
of such a kind as to prevent their being
known as pauper children;" while
Aberdeen, still more explicit, gives "clothing
of the same style and quality that a cotter's
child usually wears." One of the chief
recommendations in favour of the boarding-
out system, is, that it tends to encourage
the children to shake themselves free from
the clinging vices engendered by a state of
pauperism, to cultivate their self-respect,
and to become worthy and independent
members of society. It is clearly impossible
that these desirable results can be
brought about, if the "charity-school"
system of a hideous distinctive dress be
maintained: a system that has been the
bane of many otherwise excellent institutions,
and which still survives among us,
very much to the national disgrace.

Of the English unions consulted,
Leominster gives half-a-crown a week without
clothes: a good outfit being given to start
with; but if there is entire satisfaction that
the child is well done for (a curious
expression, but Leominster's own), clothing
is occasionally given: in which case the
chairman always requires the child to be
shown to the board. The Highworth and
Swindon Board give half-a-crown a week,
and half a guinea a quarter for clothing,
besides an outfit of clothing to begin with.
Eton is higher in the money scale, giving
three shillings and sixpence, as well as
an outfit, and six shillings and sixpence
a quarter for clothes after the first three
months. At Caistor, the payment is two
shillings and ninepence per week, and
thirty-five shillings for outfit. Horncastle
gives for the first year three shillings a
week and outfit, and makes a fresh arrangement
after the first year. King's Norton
and Chorlton each give three shillings and
clothes.

Not only are these payments considered
sufficient for the children's well-doing, but